- (1.) This appeal is directed against the impugned judgment and decree dated 29th July, 1995, passed in Civil Appeal No. 24/94 by Additional Civil Judge, Alwar, whereby she had rejected the first appeal preferred by the appellants by affirming the findings of the trial Court in civil suit No. 422/83 of Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Alwar.
(2.) The facts in brief are that the plaintiff-appellants belong to Scheduled Caste category and they filed a suit for perpetual injunction in the Court of Munsiff and Judicial Magistrate, Alwar against the respondents therein they prayed that the defendants may be restrained from interfering in the physical enjoyment of the land in tier possession and on which they had constructed residential houses. It was suo moto pleaded in the suit that the appellants were in continuous physical possession of the land in question as owners (in absence of proof of title in the records of the Courts below) for the past several years. It has been further contended that on 25th October, 1983, officers of respondent No. 2 tried to dispossess the appellants illegally without due process of law. It was further contended that since the appellants belong to S.C. Category and they were Harijans and since they did not have alternative residential houses except the disputed place of land, they should not be dispossessed.
(3.) In the written submission on behalf of respondent No. 1, it was pleaded that the appellants were neither in possession of the land for the last 70 years as alleged and since the land vested with respondent No. 1-UIT, the said authority was fully justified n removing the trespassers from the land. The appellant was given full opportunity of leading evidence and he tendered himself as a witness as PW 1 and also cited other independent witnesses in support of his case. Likewise the respondents also tendered witnesses on their behalf. The trial Court after giving sufficient opportunity to both the parties has recorded positive finding in its judgment dated 7th August, 1991 to the effect that in a suit for injunction the relief prayed for by the plaintiffs-appellants could not be granted since they had failed even to make out a prima facie care for permanent injunction and merely on the basis of the fact that he was in possession of the land in question, no relief could be granted to him in as much as the positive evidence has come on the record on behalf of the respondents. Since the plaintiff had been dispossessed earlier from the suit land in the year 1983, the suit could not be decreed on the basis of the pleadings on the record. The trial Court has also recorded a finding to the effect that if the plaintiff was the owner as alleged then no evidence regarding proof of title has come on the record and if he was the owner the proper course was to file the suit for declaration and not for the suit of injunction.;